Gay Marriage Debate Misses Larger Issue

[jwoodie]

I am not opposed to gay marriage per se. I think States are free to define marriage any way they want. However, I am concerned about the continuing dissolution of the nuclear family as a stable basis for raising children and preparing them to become responsible self-supporting adults.

Towards this end, federal tax laws were designed to reduce the financial penalty of one parent staying at home to raise children by 1) allowing married parents to "average" their combined incomes in order to remain in a lower tax bracket; 2) giving nonworking spouses an additional 50% of their working spouses social security benefits; and 3) allowing spouses to double the inheritance tax exemption amount through an AB Trust. This was based on the assumption that most parents would conform to this model.

This assumption is becoming less valid and we are paying an undeniable social and financial price for this trend, which is being ignored in the current debate about gay marriage. (Even within a civil rights context, the larger issue may be the ineligibility for these tax benefits due to fewer marriages within Black families.)

What is the solution to this growing problem? One idea would be a two-tiered marriage contract: A "civil union" for childless couples and a "civil marriage" for couples with children which would include the aforementioned tax benefits (as well as ineligibility for "no fault" divorce). I would gladly support gay marriage under these conditions. How about you?

 

[PaulS1950]

jwoodie,
What makes you think that gays cannot have a stable nuclear family?
I know quite a few foster homes that are family oriented gay people (in stable,long term relationships), and some are even married.

Sexual orientation of the parents has no bearing on whether the children can be loved and compassionately disciplined. Being gay is not "catching" and it is not a communicable disease or a mental disorder. It is a genetic trait that surfaces in all mammals when population densities rise.

If there is a "solution" (there is no "problem" to solve as I see it) it would be to lower the density of the populations to levels where the natural trigger is not tripped.

 

[jwoodie]

Please reread my entire post- I said nothing of the kind. The "problem" I referred to was the dissolution of the nuclear family (i.e., married biological parents with children). Out-of-wedlock births and no-fault divorce laws are primary drivers of this trend.

My observation about the gay marriage debate is that it has reduced marriage to a question about the distribution of government benefits rather than an instrument of social policy intended for the protection of children.

My conclusion was that I would support gay marriage if it could help further this societal goal.

 

[PaulS1950]

Please reread my entire post- I said nothing of the kind. The "problem" I referred to was the dissolution of the nuclear family (i.e., married biological parents with children). Out-of-wedlock births and no-fault divorce laws are primary drivers of this trend.

My observation about the gay marriage debate is that it has reduced marriage to a question about the distribution of government benefits rather than an instrument of social policy intended for the protection of children.

My conclusion was that I would support gay marriage if it could help further this societal goal.

Gay couples can have "biological children" through implantation or surrogate mothers. The child is still as much a child of the parents as is any child the biological child of any heterosexual couple that have remarried.
So, do you now support gay marriage?

 

[jwoodie]

I agree that gay parents are analogous to a step-parent situation. Not ideal, but in some ways better than heterosexual remarriages where the additional of more children can create immense psychological difficulties for the original children. This is why I favor repeal of no-fault divorce laws when minor children are a factor, and limitation of child-related tax benefits to married couples.

In summary, I favor "civil unions" for ALL couples before they have children, and "civil marriages" after they have children. How about you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree that gay parents are analogous to a step-parent situation. Not ideal, but in some ways better than heterosexual remarriages where the additional of more children can create immense psychological difficulties for the original children. This is why I favor repeal of no-fault divorce laws when minor children are a factor, and limitation of child-related tax benefits to married couples.

In summary, I favor "civil unions" for ALL couples before they have children, and "civil marriages" after they have children. How about you?

Since Civil Unions would apply to ALL couples (man + woman, woman + woman, man + man) without children and that Civil Marriage would apply to those same couples if they have children either through direct pregnancy, adoption, surrogacy, sperm donation, and/or IVF - then legally I see no Constutitutional objection.


But let's see how this new "less beneficial category" would work on a few specifics:

1. Would the participants in this new category be considered "next-of-kin" for hospital visitation and be the primary individual responsible for medical decision making if the spouse is incapacitated or to ill to make their medical wishes known, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

2. Would the participants in this new category be eligible for spousal insurance so that one spouse can go on the other spouses insurance policy, something not currently currently contingent on having children or not?

3. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of community property in the event of divorce, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

4. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married absent a will in terms of inheritance, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

5. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple joint tax filing, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

6. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of survivor benefits in the event of death (Social Security, Military Survivor Benefit Plan, Survivor Pension Plans, etc), something not currently contingent on having children or not?

7. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms immigration preference and legal immigrant status if a US Citizen enters this status with a foreign national, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

8. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of family status for Federal Family Medical Leave protections, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

9. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms decision making power for burial and cremation, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

10. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of eligibility for burial in a national veteran cemetery of one of the spouses was an honorably discharged veteran, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

11. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms ability to sue the responsible party in terms of wrongful death of one spouse, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

12. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of judicial protections and evidential immunity, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

13. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of joint financial arrangements and joint bankruptcy, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

14. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms Estate Tax exemptions where if one spouse dies the surviving spouse can claim the married exemption ($500,000) instead of having to take the single exemption ($250,000) if the sale of the home occurs within two years, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

15. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of the military for Quarters Allowance, access to base facilities (Commissary, Exchange, MWR, etc.), participation in TRICARE (health coverage program) or base clinics/hospitals, and finally authorized spousal travel and relocation for change of station orders; something not currently contingent on having children or not?


*************************

Let us know how that would work for the above examples, at last count there were 1,138 laws representing rights, responsibilities and benefits in just federal law pertaining to Civil Marriage. Only 1,123 to go. Then of course if there are 300 laws impacted by marriage in each of the 50 states under the laws of that state, and the District of Columbia, that would make - let me see here - another 15,300 (51*300) laws that would have to be changed/updated to account for this new less beneficial legal status.

While I'd have no legal objection, since groups would be treated equally, I think the likelihood of legislation passing would be pretty small.


>>>>

 

[FA_Q2]

Please reread my entire post- I said nothing of the kind. The "problem" I referred to was the dissolution of the nuclear family (i.e., married biological parents with children). Out-of-wedlock births and no-fault divorce laws are primary drivers of this trend.

My observation about the gay marriage debate is that it has reduced marriage to a question about the distribution of government benefits rather than an instrument of social policy intended for the protection of children.

My conclusion was that I would support gay marriage if it could help further this societal goal.

That would be the problem I have with your idea though I think it is BETTER than what we have now.

To be blunt, I don’t see any reason that the government needs to get involved in decisions that adults make at all. I have a very large dislike of the government using tax policy to drive social change. It gets us into the mess that we are in. Most of what is accomplished could be done by ‘dependent’ status anyway.

Personally I favor a flat tax rate over all this social engineering bullshit. Just get the government out of my life so I can live it as I see fit.

 

[jwoodie]

I agree that gay parents are analogous to a step-parent situation. Not ideal, but in some ways better than heterosexual remarriages where the additional of more children can create immense psychological difficulties for the original children. This is why I favor repeal of no-fault divorce laws when minor children are a factor, and limitation of child-related tax benefits to married couples.

In summary, I favor "civil unions" for ALL couples before they have children, and "civil marriages" after they have children. How about you?

Since Civil Unions would apply to ALL couples (man + woman, woman + woman, man + man) without children and that Civil Marriage would apply to those same couples if they have children either through direct pregnancy, adoption, surrogacy, sperm donation, and/or IVF - then legally I see no Constutitutional objection.


But let's see how this new "less beneficial category" would work on a few specifics:

1. Would the participants in this new category be considered "next-of-kin" for hospital visitation and be the primary individual responsible for medical decision making if the spouse is incapacitated or to ill to make their medical wishes known, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

2. Would the participants in this new category be eligible for spousal insurance so that one spouse can go on the other spouses insurance policy, something not currently currently contingent on having children or not?

3. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of community property in the event of divorce, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

4. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married absent a will in terms of inheritance, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

5. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple joint tax filing, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

6. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of survivor benefits in the event of death (Social Security, Military Survivor Benefit Plan, Survivor Pension Plans, etc), something not currently contingent on having children or not?

7. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms immigration preference and legal immigrant status if a US Citizen enters this status with a foreign national, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

8. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of family status for Federal Family Medical Leave protections, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

9. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms decision making power for burial and cremation, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

10. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of eligibility for burial in a national veteran cemetery of one of the spouses was an honorably discharged veteran, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

11. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms ability to sue the responsible party in terms of wrongful death of one spouse, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

12. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of judicial protections and evidential immunity, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

13. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of joint financial arrangements and joint bankruptcy, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

14. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms Estate Tax exemptions where if one spouse dies the surviving spouse can claim the married exemption ($500,000) instead of having to take the single exemption ($250,000) if the sale of the home occurs within two years, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

15. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of the military for Quarters Allowance, access to base facilities (Commissary, Exchange, MWR, etc.), participation in TRICARE (health coverage program) or base clinics/hospitals, and finally authorized spousal travel and relocation for change of station orders; something not currently contingent on having children or not?


*************************

Let us know how that would work for the above examples, at last count there were 1,138 laws representing rights, responsibilities and benefits in just federal law pertaining to Civil Marriage. Only 1,123 to go. Then of course if there are 300 laws impacted by marriage in each of the 50 states under the laws of that state, and the District of Columbia, that would make - let me see here - another 15,300 (51*300) laws that would have to be changed/updated to account for this new less beneficial legal status.

While I'd have no legal objection, since groups would be treated equally, I think the likelihood of legislation passing would be pretty small.


>>>>

Methinks you protest too much. Civil Unions already exist in many states, so the problems stemming from this legal distinction are not as great as you suggest.

 

[jwoodie]

Please reread my entire post- I said nothing of the kind. The "problem" I referred to was the dissolution of the nuclear family (i.e., married biological parents with children). Out-of-wedlock births and no-fault divorce laws are primary drivers of this trend.

My observation about the gay marriage debate is that it has reduced marriage to a question about the distribution of government benefits rather than an instrument of social policy intended for the protection of children.

My conclusion was that I would support gay marriage if it could help further this societal goal.

That would be the problem I have with your idea though I think it is BETTER than what we have now.

To be blunt, I don’t see any reason that the government needs to get involved in decisions that adults make at all. I have a very large dislike of the government using tax policy to drive social change. It gets us into the mess that we are in. Most of what is accomplished could be done by ‘dependent’ status anyway.

Personally I favor a flat tax rate over all this social engineering bullshit. Just get the government out of my life so I can live it as I see fit.

The government may not need to get involved in relations between consenting adults, but it does have a legitimate interest in the protection of children.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree that gay parents are analogous to a step-parent situation. Not ideal, but in some ways better than heterosexual remarriages where the additional of more children can create immense psychological difficulties for the original children. This is why I favor repeal of no-fault divorce laws when minor children are a factor, and limitation of child-related tax benefits to married couples.

In summary, I favor "civil unions" for ALL couples before they have children, and "civil marriages" after they have children. How about you?

Since Civil Unions would apply to ALL couples (man + woman, woman + woman, man + man) without children and that Civil Marriage would apply to those same couples if they have children either through direct pregnancy, adoption, surrogacy, sperm donation, and/or IVF - then legally I see no Constutitutional objection.


But let's see how this new "less beneficial category" would work on a few specifics:

1. Would the participants in this new category be considered "next-of-kin" for hospital visitation and be the primary individual responsible for medical decision making if the spouse is incapacitated or to ill to make their medical wishes known, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

2. Would the participants in this new category be eligible for spousal insurance so that one spouse can go on the other spouses insurance policy, something not currently currently contingent on having children or not?

3. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of community property in the event of divorce, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

4. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married absent a will in terms of inheritance, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

5. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple joint tax filing, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

6. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of survivor benefits in the event of death (Social Security, Military Survivor Benefit Plan, Survivor Pension Plans, etc), something not currently contingent on having children or not?

7. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms immigration preference and legal immigrant status if a US Citizen enters this status with a foreign national, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

8. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of family status for Federal Family Medical Leave protections, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

9. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms decision making power for burial and cremation, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

10. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of eligibility for burial in a national veteran cemetery of one of the spouses was an honorably discharged veteran, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

11. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms ability to sue the responsible party in terms of wrongful death of one spouse, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

12. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of judicial protections and evidential immunity, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

13. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of joint financial arrangements and joint bankruptcy, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

14. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms Estate Tax exemptions where if one spouse dies the surviving spouse can claim the married exemption ($500,000) instead of having to take the single exemption ($250,000) if the sale of the home occurs within two years, something not currently contingent on having children or not?

15. Would the participants in this new category be treated the same as a Civilly Married couple in terms of the military for Quarters Allowance, access to base facilities (Commissary, Exchange, MWR, etc.), participation in TRICARE (health coverage program) or base clinics/hospitals, and finally authorized spousal travel and relocation for change of station orders; something not currently contingent on having children or not?


*************************

Let us know how that would work for the above examples, at last count there were 1,138 laws representing rights, responsibilities and benefits in just federal law pertaining to Civil Marriage. Only 1,123 to go. Then of course if there are 300 laws impacted by marriage in each of the 50 states under the laws of that state, and the District of Columbia, that would make - let me see here - another 15,300 (51*300) laws that would have to be changed/updated to account for this new less beneficial legal status.

While I'd have no legal objection, since groups would be treated equally, I think the likelihood of legislation passing would be pretty small.


>>>>

Methinks you protest too much. Civil Unions already exist in many states, so the problems stemming from this legal distinction are not as great as you suggest.

That answer doesn't address the questions.

From your OP, you suggested a two tier system "Civil Unions" for all childless coupoles and "Civil Marriages" for all couples that have children. So one would assume your solution is Civil Union for all different-sex and same-sex couples without children and all different-sex and same-sex couples that have a child (with no requirement that the child(ren) be the biological offspring of both spouses) would be elevated to "Civil Marriages".

At last count there were 1,138 federal laws that would have to be re-written, then each state has their own laws, a conservative estimate would be - let's say - 300. For 50 states plus the District of Columbia that works out to (51 * 300) + 1138 = 16,438 laws that Congress and Legislatures would have to re-write all so that homosexuals wouldn't be using the word "marriage".

But wait, homosexuals who have children in the same way that infertile heterosexual couples do would be able to be classified as Civilly Married moving up in tiers that were suggested.


So the removal of rights, responsibilities, and privileges from infertile heterosexual couples accomplishes what exactly?


The above short list gives you an opportunity to start outlining some of the things that you would take away from childless couples.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Please reread my entire post- I said nothing of the kind. The "problem" I referred to was the dissolution of the nuclear family (i.e., married biological parents with children). Out-of-wedlock births and no-fault divorce laws are primary drivers of this trend.

My observation about the gay marriage debate is that it has reduced marriage to a question about the distribution of government benefits rather than an instrument of social policy intended for the protection of children.

My conclusion was that I would support gay marriage if it could help further this societal goal.

That would be the problem I have with your idea though I think it is BETTER than what we have now.

To be blunt, I don’t see any reason that the government needs to get involved in decisions that adults make at all. I have a very large dislike of the government using tax policy to drive social change. It gets us into the mess that we are in. Most of what is accomplished could be done by ‘dependent’ status anyway.

Personally I favor a flat tax rate over all this social engineering bullshit. Just get the government out of my life so I can live it as I see fit.

The government may not need to get involved in relations between consenting adults, but it does have a legitimate interest in the protection of children.

Since you refer to government and therefore treatment under the law...

Could you specifically identify what protections would be taken away from different-sex couples by allowing same-sex couples equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws?

If Jane and Joan down the street have a child and are allowed to Civilly Marry, what protection is removed from Ozzy and Harriet and their child?


>>>>

 

[FA_Q2]

The government may not need to get involved in relations between consenting adults, but it does have a legitimate interest in the protection of children.

And?

Tax law has nothing to do with that nor does marriage law really. What would it matter?

 

[candycorn]

I am not opposed to gay marriage per se. I think States are free to define marriage any way they want. However, I am concerned about the continuing dissolution of the nuclear family as a stable basis for raising children and preparing them to become responsible self-supporting adults.

Towards this end, federal tax laws were designed to reduce the financial penalty of one parent staying at home to raise children by 1) allowing married parents to "average" their combined incomes in order to remain in a lower tax bracket; 2) giving nonworking spouses an additional 50% of their working spouses social security benefits; and 3) allowing spouses to double the inheritance tax exemption amount through an AB Trust. This was based on the assumption that most parents would conform to this model.

This assumption is becoming less valid and we are paying an undeniable social and financial price for this trend, which is being ignored in the current debate about gay marriage. (Even within a civil rights context, the larger issue may be the ineligibility for these tax benefits due to fewer marriages within Black families.)

What is the solution to this growing problem? One idea would be a two-tiered marriage contract: A "civil union" for childless couples and a "civil marriage" for couples with children which would include the aforementioned tax benefits (as well as ineligibility for "no fault" divorce). I would gladly support gay marriage under these conditions. How about you?

I feel you missed the larger issue. I feel no governmental body should be able to veto your relationship if you wish to take it to the proverbial next level.

 

[jwoodie]

This subject is apparently too weighty to be grasped at an intellectual level, so the conversation has devolved into the following points:

1. Any proposal to change marriage laws must be accompanied by detailed proposed legislation and implementing regulations for all 50 states and the federal government. (Never mind that several states and the federal government have been doing this for some time now.)

2. Civil marriage is about "love" and has nothing to do with children.

3. It's all about who gets (and who is deprived of) government benefits.

Congratulations.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This subject is apparently too weighty to be grasped at an intellectual level, so the conversation has devolved into the following points:

1. Any proposal to change marriage laws must be accompanied by detailed proposed legislation and implementing regulations for all 50 states and the federal government. (Never mind that several states and the federal government have been doing this for some time now.)

If I remember correctly, YOU are the one that suggested a separate but equal secondary status. If you have a separate institution, then the federal government and the states would have to enact separate laws to deal with it.

Sorry that is simply logic.

2. Civil marriage is about "love" and has nothing to do with children.

When infertile different-sex couples (and in some state different-sex couples must show they are infertile to Civilly Marry), then "children" are not the determining factor.

3. It's all about who gets (and who is deprived of) government benefits.

It's about equal treatment under the law. Do infertile, different-sex couples only Civilly Marry for the benefits?



>>>>

 

[jwoodie]

Whoosh...

 

[PaulS1950]

We marry for many reasons and children are only one of the hundreds of reasons that marriage is recorded by the government. If you aren't married you don't automatically keep what you and your partner have built during that time. If you aren't married a hospital doesn't have to let you visit with your partner in the ICU or after the regular visiting hours are over.
None of those rights due to marriage are in recognition of anything religious - just what is just for two people who build a life together. The government does not have the power to decide who can or cannot marry. Religions can do that as a right to limit their sacrements to those of their faith but if a minister or a judge is willing to perform the ceremony then it should be legal for same gender couples to marry.

 

[jwoodie]

Other than the protection and welfare of children, why should government be involved in relations between consenting adults? All of the other issues you mentioned are easily (if not already) resolved.

 

[PaulS1950]

They are not resolved. If two men or two women are joined in a "civil union" they don't have the right to stay together when one is in the ICU. If they have built a home together and the working partner dies without leaving a will then the dead partner's family splits the estate and the other partner is left with nothing. They can't even collect survivor benefits from Social Security. If you are "joined" in a "civil union" and travel across state lines and spend the night at a motel or a friends house you can be arrested and convicted of a violation of the Mann Act and sent to prison. The laws that protect married partners do not cover those partners who are joined in a civil union. Only the disolution laws apply to the union but none of the others.

Marriage is a civil union but it is protected by law to protect all those involved, not just the children.

The sacrament of marriage performed by religious clerics is a different thing all together but it is also a civilly accepted union. I can perform either and I do perform both. I also perform marriage (the sacrament) for same gender couples because my church is not against same gender marriages. I can now perform same gender marriages under civil law and I will.

 

[Saigon]

I don't see what is difficult about this issue.

All adults should be free to marry whoever they want.

This is called freedom.